Women Against Sarah Palin

A Post by: Quinn Latimer and Lyra Kilston New York, NY This Post is by women & ONLY for women that are against Palin being vice-president: Friends, compatriots, fellow-lamenters: We are writing to you because of the fury and dread we have felt since the announcement of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. We believe that this terrible decision has surpassed mere partisanship, and that it is a dangerous farce—on the part of a pandering and rudderless Presidential candidate—that has a real possibility of becoming fact. Perhaps like us, as American women, you share the fear of what Ms. Palin and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for ourselves and for our present or future daughters. To date, she is against sex education, birth control, the pro-choice platform, environmental protection, alternative energy development, freedom of speech (as mayor she wanted to ban books and attempted to fire the librarian who stood against her), gun control, the separation of church and state, and polar bears. To say nothing of her complete lack of real preparation to become the second-most-powerful person on the planet. We want to clarify that we are not against Sarah Palin as a woman, a mother, or, for that matter, a parent of a pregnant teenager, but solely as a rash, incompetent, and all together devastating choice for Vice President. Ms. Palin's political views are in every way a slap in the face to the accomplishments that our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers so fiercely fought for, and that we've so demonstrably benefited from. First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does not demonstrate or uphold our interests as American women. It is presumed that the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket could win over women voters. We want to disagree, publicly. Therefore, we invite you to reply here with a short, succinct message about why you, as a woman living in this country, do not support this candidate as second-in-command for our nation. Please include your name (last initial is fine), age, and place of residence. We will post your responses on a blog called 'Women Against Sarah Palin,' which we intend to publicize as widely as possible. Please send us your reply at your earliest convenience—the greater the volume of responses we receive, the stronger our message will be. Thank you for your time and action. Sincerely, Quinn Latimer and Lyra Kilston New York, NY womensaynopalin@gmail.com


Anonymous said...

It is very easy to hate someone when you distort the facts about them.

Sarah is against sex ed for children who are really young. Unlike Barack who wants to teach sex ed to kindergardners. Sarah is not against sex ed in general. It has to be the right context.

Sarah is NOT against birth control.

Sarah is definitely against abortion. That fact is true.

Sarah is NOT against environmental protection. That is a flat out lie!

Sarah is NOT against alternative energy at all and has NEVER said so! She is for drilling in addition to alternative energy.

Sarah NEVER tried to ban books! That is an internet lie which is easily debunked because the list that she so called tried to ban has books on it that were not even published yet.

She is definitely against gun control which is a code word for anti second ammendment rights guarenteed to us by our constitution.

She is NOT against the separation of church and state and has publicly stated that.

It is very easy to demonize someone for stuff they do not believe. You just make it up, throw it out to the world and hope it sticks.

Well done with the lies.

You should at least criticize her for the actual stuff she believes instead of this hogwash that is totally made up!

Speech said...

Thanks for clarifying, on those particular points. We appreciate it.
The letter on Palin, is from my friend and is to women that regardless of the new things you pointed out still are appalled by her suggestion for vice president (especially seeing that McCain is one of older candidates in our nation's history)

It's obvious that McCain wanted to "Shake things up" and bring more mystique & divisive tactics to his campaign by choosing her. Hoping that he will get the woman vote.

But his irresponsibility of putting politics before country is why so many are outraged!


hasani said...

McCain is going to win anyway, it doesnt mattr, and even if Barack did, I still dont understand why Americans think our system is based on choice. This country has been under private ownership for probably more than half a century. /i have no delusions, his country is finished. People need to repent and prepare for the second coming. Peace

Lisa said...

I promise I'll e-mail tonight. I'm taking a break this morning from ranting. Six month pregnancy hormonal blues got me a lil' on edge. I'm taking a break to chill out. But, look out, tonight I'll let it fly. Much love and peace.

Damalek said...


My name is Alexandra Rabczynska Raduszynski
I am 29 years old, I'm dancer/Choreographer,
'but' I live in France in Paris.

I support 'Women Against Sarah Palin' because I know about a lot of political decisions from the American Governement have a strong influence in all over the world!...Damalek

Derrick Morris said...

I would like to set an interview up for my radio show 3rd coast Radio
Derrick Morris
3rd Coast Radio

Dominique said...

Dominique M., 16, Louisville, Kentucky
-Although im just a "kid" in certain peoples opinions I believe I have just as much responsibility as anyone else to take a stand for what I believe to be nothing more than a ploy on McCain's n part to win presidency. Not only do I not stand for Palin, a women who states several times that she's very much in her childrens life and a member of the school's PTO, but decided to accept the place of McCain's running mate, a huge load to bear in itself. Does she not have enough on her plate already? A pregnant teenager, soon to be married to her boyfriend (Levi Johnston), 3 other children, and still another with down syndrome. I believe that her presentation as such a well to do wife, mother, and home maker would clearly turn her from such a big responsibility, especially at this time in her life. I do not believe McCain chose this women as his running mate for any reason other than to grab votes from women who see only what they want, and that is that Paline is a female. Plain and simple.

SPEECH said...

WOW! What an intelligent 16 year old!

I have a 14 year old son, if you're single... (just kidding) :-)

Thank you for writing in!


kamasami kong said...

Thanks Speech. Very well done! I'm forwarding this to all my frineds.

-kamasami kong

Maureen said...

For women against Palin....

I stand with this opinion from the prospective of "passing on the need to be vigilant in the protection of women's rights". The freedom of choice I have benefited from, is due only to the cause women before me have stood up for. The political position of Sarah Palin threatens womens's rights.

Maureen Reardon

Anonymous said...

Speech wrote concerning the Palin choice for VP: "But his irresponsibility of putting politics before country is why so many are outraged!"

This is a fairly ignorant statement. You do not understand just how much this pic is exactly putting country first!

Palin is a true reformer who has a record of fighting corruption in her own party! Obama has not even hinted at wanting to fight corruption in his own party nor has he any single example of doing so!

The problem with Washington is corrupt Republicans and Democrats. Both parties have good and bad people in them.

Palin has a STRONG record at vetoing pork government spending and earmarks saving tax payers MUCH money! Obama has NONE!!! Obama votes over and over again for more big government and spending! That is a historical fact!

McCain chose to put country first by putting someone authentic and real in Washington who is connected with the people and the community unlike Obama who chose Biden who is the exact opposite. He is a BIG TIME SPENDER who wastes money and grows government.

McCain chose some who will come in and KICK the modern Socialist Corrupt Liberal Republicans BUTTS!!!!

That is country FIRST!!!!

Frechdogg said...

I am not a woman, but I am a "womanist" and am firmly against Palin and everything that she stands for. Preach on...Frechdogg

CHI-OR-DIE said...

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!...oh my stomach! just kiddin...i respect every bodies viewpoints but this is just a little over the top... Chi or die

Siruh said...

thanks for the info! i will definitely spread the word!!:) Siruh

LP/34/Atlanta said...

I could not support a candidate who is pro-gun and anti-free speech, nor could I endorse a candidate who believes the Iraq war is "God's war" and "the jury is still out on global warming". Each day I hope that Americans are smart enough to pay attention to the REAL issues like the economy, our (damaged)global reputation and taking a stand on social issues that keep us moving forward, not backwards.

Sarah S. said...

The woman did not know what the 'Bush Doctoren' was when asked in an interview. I believe it is just a republican act to win over good American women voters. I believe in birth control, sex education, gun control and freedom of speech.
Sarah S.
age 27, st. louis, Mo

Weslie said...

I have been hearing yall preach for 13 years now. I am ready for more. I am definitely sick of all this "Unsucessful White People in America" bullshit. Truth is I am white(according to the hospital report). My father was from Indian heritage as was my Grandfather and so on. My Mother was a white, German heritage female. Honestly, all this talk of white, black indian, german shit has finally gotten on my nerves. I am a peaceful, loving, accepting, giving, nurturing individual with no plans of teaching my children about black, yellow, red, and white people. This is ridiculous! This isn't the middle ages. We are all people trying to live in a vast, un-predictable universe. Why can't we all be the same and focus on preservation instead of domination? My Lord above shows me that as long as I love all of my brothers, I shall LIVE. And so I will. Thanks for always being there as a shining force in my life. I will love you all forever! Palin? Who is Palin?Stalin, Galin? Got me? Came out of nowhere.

Dominique said...

i wqas in two videos at your house. One was with a tent and the other was held in your studio and outside, you probably dont remember, but i had an amazing time. You guys are such wonderful and giving people. I attend the Louisville church of christ in kentucky too. =]

oh and thank you very much for the offer. Im sure your son is an amazing person haha, but i am in a relationship lol.

Associated Press article said...

Excerpt from (AP writer Brett J. Blackledge's story)

"I'm embarrassed to be from Alaska right now," said Lindsay Solie, a 22-year-old waitress in Fairbanks. "It's really not just political rhetoric that she could be a heartbeat away from being president. This person just really doesn't have the experience, the formal education."

There's been a lot written and said about Palin outside of Alaska since her selection as McCain's running mate shoved her onto the national stage last month. Ralph Nelson, a 63-year-old retired truck driver from Wasilla, has watched it all unfold with amusement.

"She's a showboater. She loves the attention," said Nelson, a self-described hard-core Democrat who supports Sen. Barack Obama, and a rare find in this mostly Republican state.

It's no wonder Palin received glowing reviews for her GOP convention speech, he said.
It reminds Nelson of the time she made a high-profile trip to Iraq shortly after becoming governor in December 2006. "She was elected to go to Juneau, not Iraq," Nelson said. "But she got a lot of attention with that."

That's the Sarah Palin that Nelson has watched as she has soared in political office since being elected to the Wasilla town council in 1992, then Wasilla mayor in 1996 and Alaska governor in 2006.

True, Nelson said, Palin seems an unlikely vice president because she lacks foreign policy experience and hasn't tackled national issues. But she knows how to give a speech, and she's an attractive, plain-speaking politician unafraid of controversy, he said.

"I like Sarah," he said. "I believe the lady has a lot of common sense. I think she'll do a good job of it," Nelson said, adding quickly that he won't vote for her. That would mean he'd have to vote Republican, and he can't stomach the thought of voting for McCain.

Jason said...

Charlie Gibson's Gaffee
Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008

"Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of `anticipatory self-defense.'" -- New York Times, Sept. 12

WASHINGTON -- Informed her? Rubbish.

The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."


I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush Doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden ... to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about Bush's grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.

Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

JMS said...

C'mon Speech, you gotta be a bit more careful when posting dishonest comments by rabid partisans if you want to keep the intellectual and moral high road. This woman's post is on par with all the "Barak Obama is a closet Islamic Jihadist" type internet foolishness.

You're sharper than this, man. I know you are. Don't get sucked in to the mud-slinging on the basis of your desire to see your candidate victorious. The Right-wingers do this very thing and are criticized (rightly) for doing so.

Rise above it.

Still your fan,

SPEECH said...

Thanks for the post JMS, I earlier apologized for any false statements the post includes and you're right I must be more careful in the future.
We may disagree on the candidates and even the reality of a republican being able to wipe out abortion in this country. But...
I am a man who believes strongly in staying thirsty for truth! I hope you are too. ;-) BTW/ I went to your blog, quite nice! I fished around and read some interesting links etc.

I also understand about visiting on a Sunday. :-)

We'll continue to talk!

Else Krogh-Hansen said...


Allthough from Norway and resident here, I most definitively agree with you. Be about the future …
Good luck in collecting support of your view!

Peace, Love & Liberty
single mother of four.

Else Krogh-Hansen
Oslo, Norway

Njeri said...

One of the many things that scares me most about Palin, is that, as an elected official she voted against funding for teenage pregnancy prevention and awareness programs. And now being the mother of a pregnant teenager her solution is to have two teenagers wed...as if that solves the problem! It scares me that she has zero tolerance for abortions, even in cases of incest, rape, or the baby has severe birth defects. I don't understand how anyone who would knowingly victimize someone twice? She isn't "EVERY" woman, and we shouldn't vote for the McCain/Palin ticket just because we would like to see a woman Vice President. It's not about gender or race, it's about picking the RIGHT set of PEOPLE to run this country!

N.,34, Louisville,Ky

JMS said...

Hey brother, thanks for checkin' out the blog. Feel free to drop some knowledge at "the Dojo" anytime! :)

I didn't read where you apologized for it, but that's my fault; I should've read all the responses before posting.

Have a blessed Sunday and keep on thirsting!

Your friend, fan and brother,

JMS said...

Just to clarify, are you saying that someone having a child is being "victimized a second time"? If anything it seems that the child is being punished for the crime of the father in cases of abortion where rape was involved. I don't understand that logic. And for the record, EVERY pro-life piece of legislature that I've ever heard of contained provisions for legal abortion in such "hard cases"--which make up less than 1% of near 1 million abortions performed each year.

Having the teenagers get married may not be a good solution...but killing the child in the womb is a far worse one.


2tone23 said...

wow, where to start? there are so many issues here: my main objection to Sarah Palin is that she, like Bush, is promoting a dangerous brand of anti-intellectualism. Any dissenting view is thrown away as biased, and many voters have decided that no news or commentary is valid and therefore are preferring to remain uninformed. I'm also mystified at how she appeals to working women (who can't use taxpayer money to work from home, or bring their babies to work), or women who have a more traditional role (she seems to use her children for political means...they handed around her baby boy like a log).

This editorial by Frank Rich has some very valid points, and should be read by all voters: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14rich.html?th&emc=th

Here's an exerpt that really moved me:

"The specifics have changed in our new century, but the vitriolic animus of right-wing populism preached by Pegler and McCarthy and revived by the 1990s culture wars remains the same. The game is always to pit the good, patriotic real Americans against those subversive, probably gay “cosmopolitan” urbanites (as the sometime cross-dresser Rudy Giuliani has it) who threaten to take away everything that small-town folk hold dear.

The racial component to this brand of politics was undisguised in St. Paul. Americans saw a virtually all-white audience yuk it up when Giuliani ridiculed Barack Obama’s “only in America” success as an affirmative-action fairy tale — and when he and Palin mocked Obama’s history as a community organizer in Chicago. Neither party has had so few black delegates (1.5 percent) in the 40 years since the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies started keeping a record.

But race is just one manifestation of the emotion that defined the Palin rollout. That dominant emotion is fear — an abject fear of change. Fear of a demographical revolution that will put whites in the American minority by 2042. Fear of the technological revolution and globalization that have gutted those small towns and factories Palin apotheosized.

And, last but hardly least, fear of illegal immigrants who do the low-paying jobs that Americans don’t want to do and of legal immigrants who do the high-paying jobs that poorly educated Americans are not qualified to do. No less revealing than Palin’s convention invocation of Pegler was the pointed omission of any mention of immigration, once the hottest Republican issue, by either her or McCain. Saying the word would have cued an eruption of immigrant-bashing ugliness, Pegler-style, before a national television audience. That wouldn’t play in the swing states of Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, where Obama already has a more than 2-to-1 lead among Hispanic voters. (Bush captured roughly 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004.)

Since St. Paul, Democrats have been feasting on the hypocrisy of the Palin partisans, understandably enough. The same Republicans who attack Democrats for being too P.C. about race now howl about sexism with such abandon you half-expect Phyllis Schlafly and Carly Fiorina to stage a bra-burning. The same gang that once fueled Internet rumors and media feeding frenzies over the Clintons’ private lives now express pious outrage when the same fate befalls the Palins.

But the ultimate hypocrisy is that these woebegone, frightened opponents of change, sworn enemies of race-based college-admission initiatives, are now demanding their own affirmative action program for white folks applying to the electoral college. They want the bar for admission to the White House to be placed so low that legitimate scrutiny and criticism of Palin’s qualifications, record and family values can all be placed off limits. Byron York of National Review, a rare conservative who acknowledges the double standard, captured it best: “If the Obamas had a 17-year-old daughter who was unmarried and pregnant by a tough-talking black kid, my guess is if they all appeared onstage at a Democratic convention and the delegates were cheering wildly, a number of conservatives might be discussing the issue of dysfunctional black families.”

big love, Speech :)

Jessica said...

I am against Sarah Palin becoming our Vice President because I think that whether or not you are pro-choice or pro-life, you have to agree that it would be good to reduce the number of abortions that take place. This means teaching kids sex education and how to use birth control. Not teaching sex ed in the schools doesn't stop kids from having sex. Teaching abstinence only does not keep kids from having sex. They will still have sex and there will still be a ton of teenage pregnancies unless we teach these young people how to use birth control.

I have also encountered a lot of useless men who know nothing about STD's and how to protect themselves, and I think these men could have benefited from some STD info as part of a broader sex education program in the schools, which will impart teens with knowledge that they will carry over into their adult life.

This is why Sarah Palin scares me.

Jessica Amos

Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin is not against sex ed....she is against the government teaching sex ed to toddlers.

She believes it is the parents role to educate your own kids about that stuff.

Nothing wrong with that.

I was taught sex ed in school as a toddler and it did absolutely nothing!

Teens are teens and will rebel against anything anywhere anytime. That is their nature!

Anne said...

Sarah Palin is a disgrace to all Women, she should be ashamed.
Anne R.
Sherman Oaks, CA

thecultjam said...

I hate to be divisive, or act as if someone’s feelings or beliefs are invalid, but I have to say this..
as a woman in this time and place who has experienced pregnancy, I have to say that I have a really hard time with men (especially ones who aren’t fathers yet themselves) talking about the best way to handle a pregnancy, let alone an unwanted one. NOT because I think they're invalid, they are valid to you if that’s what you feel is true, but I think its important to consider first that as a man you will never know what it is to be pregnant. My son is 8 months old, and I had been married and in love for 3 years before we found out about him joining us, but none of that mattered in the middle of the emotional and physical stress' and sacrifices that come with giving up ALL rights to your body for the better part of a year for someone you've never met. I understood the second my son was laid on my chest that he could end up like Obama or Manson, he was a clean slate and it was up to me and my husband to be sure we did everything in our power to keep him safe and healthy and compassionate. We have to stand together as a team against what seems like majority of society some days. That’s an immense amount of pressure. With all of my husbands support and understanding during my pregnancy, my life was still disrupted and I was forced to make adjustments and sacrifices I had never thought about before. As scary and unsure as my experience was, I couldn’t help but feel blessed to have the love and support from my husband and close friends that I did, because I know many girls don’t have even that. I could not imagine going through a first pregnancy and having to face all those things alone, and I am a woman AND a mother!!! It’s a hard road with help and love, single mothers are literally the strongest force on the planet, it is amazing they make it in this society, and understandable when others feel unprepared to face it.
My son is worth every stressful, terrifying, guilt-ridden moment, I love being chosen to make these sacrifices for him, because he is what will represent the person I am and part of what I brought to this earth, but my pregnancy, and my experience as a mother this far in my 25 years on the planet have taught me that being a mother is far to big a job to be forced into.
We all deserve a choice, we all deserve for our experience to be worthwhile. I just think it’s important to remember, that as a man, there are certain elements to pregnancy and child birth you can never possibly understand, though I know it’s not from a lack of trying. Abortion is a serious issue, not to be taken lightly, but I try to remember that a lot of hidden things play into peoples decisions, maybe there’s a piece you don’t know, because it wasn’t meant for you. God does see and know all, and he has compassion and understanding for all of our experiences.


Anonymous said...

Men understanding or not understanding pregnancy is one thing however allowing woman to choose to commit murder is another.

The fact that we are even having this debate in America is absolutely twisted in my opinion.

If a woman does not want to be a mother she either needs to keep her legs closed or give the baby up for adoption.

I know that sounds insensitive however it is the truth.

Murder should not and cannot even be a question.

JMS said...

Your comment above shows a severe lack of understanding of the complexities of the abortion issue and does very little to further the cause of fighting abortion-on-demand.

I would encourage you to spend more time with women who've had abortions and have lived to regret it every day since. I'd encourage you to try to get into their point of view as much as possible and understand and empathize with them as they faced a scary unknown that seemed insurmountable at the time.

Only when we do that do we have the right to speak out against abortion-on-demand. If we don't do that, we're nothing more than talking heads at best and judgmental hypocrites at worst.


Anonymous said...

JMS....I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with you my friend.

Would you like to not speak out about murder until you spent time with those guys on death row?

JMS said...

You have to remember that murderers on death row at least know that they are guilty of murder.

Unfortunately, most women who have abortions have been told by society and those of the pro-choice ilk that they're just exercising control over their own bodies and having a surgical procedure on a "lump of tissue". We have to show them the hideous truth of what this "procedure" actually is, but that will not happen if we attack the women themselves. If anything it is the doctors who perform abortions and the groups who fight for them to remain legal who are the most guilty.

Is abortion murder? Of course. Should we speak out against it? Absolutely. Should we demonize those we are trying to reach with the message? No. This only furthers the stereotype that pro-lifers don't care about the life of the mother and don't care about the health of women or their bodies...which feeds the propaganda machines of NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and other injustice organizations.

"Wise as serpents...but gentle as doves..." I think in this particular debate, those who oppose abortion have let emotion and polemic actually hinder the fight against abortion. I know I did this as a teenager who was militantly pro-life. I thought shame and ridicule were effective means of changing people's minds on abortion. I now realize that rational discourse, a willingness to listen and understand their feelings, and a dogged committment to showing the evils of abortion itself rather than those considering it are much more effective.

Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more!

JMS said...

Here's an interesting study I found that looks at the issue of women who are pregnant and have little options given them. I thought you would find it interesting, Speech, since you are around college campuses and students at church or on tour:


Here's the pdf of the findings:


Also, as they share on another page, if you or someone you love has experienced the personal tragedy of abortion and you are looking for help, please follow the links below for more information.

Project Rachel

Rachel's Vineyard

Ramah International

Silent No More Awareness Campaign

I hope people can understand that opposing abortion does not = opposing women involved with it. Pro-life should always target BOTH the mother AND the child in her womb.

Trying to raise awareness,

KISSmyBLAKarts said...

In 2008 why are women's reproductive rights even an issue???? Hands off our ovaries dayummittt!!!

*sigh* I'm sooooOOooo ova it!!

((((sorry couldn't resist))));OP


JMS said...

No one wants to mess with your ovaries, I promise. It's the human being they help produce that deserves the same rights you and I have.

Rhetoric proves nothing...be it "reproductive rights" or "final solution".


kissmyblakarts said...

Well in that rationale, every 28 days there's a force of natural selection that takes away the right to life of potential beings they help to produce. Who's batting for their rights???

Its clearly a null and void argument that isn't fit for political posturing.

Nor is it condusive to be tolerant of any circumstance that may surround such individuals [both genders] who have to contend with these matters directly.

Why can't it be up to their spiritual leaning to judge them, not some disconnected individual and bureaucracy?

Its two thousand and eight people...leave this 1950s mindset to collect dust in the archives.


Anonymous said...

Well children come from your ovaries so why can't you murder them even after they are born. What's the difference?

Why not just legalize murder? Who cares if someone gets murdered right?

thecultjam said...


First of all I think it's necessary to point out your argument is REALLY disjointed...

and second of all, there's clearly a difference between someone who is alive and thriving physically in the world, and a potential person who may or may not thrive due to natural causes, and is clearly surviving ONLY THRU a living human being.

I PERSONALLY agree that life, in different abstract ways, begins at conception. But I'm also intelligent enough to understand that that "child" that has come to life could not survive without the LIFE IT IS ATTACHED TO and growing from.
Allowing this option IS NOT equal to legalizing murder. Silly.

JMS said...

**S**, I'm afraid your logic is flawed here. You're comparing an unfertilized egg with a fetus. There are substantial differences, the biggest being that an unfertilized egg, even if not flushed via menstruation only contains the DNA of the woman and is not in a state of development or growth. An embryo or fetus on the other hand has its own unique DNA, and if left unmolested will continue growing through all the normal stages of human life (just as you and I are doing right now, in fact). The egg (or sperm) is a completely developed cellular structure that is not a human life--it is a building block of human life, but not an actual life. An embryo/fetus is a human life in its actual beginning stages of development--not a potential life that may one day develop.

I'm afraid that while you're criticizing the previous poster's logic, you are not faring much better in that department with this particular argument. Here's why. A human life regardless of who or what it is depending on at the moment to sustain its life is still a human life. Whether it's a human developing in the womb relying on the life of the mother or a newborn baby lying on the ground relying on someone else for food and shelter, it makes no difference. ALL OF US at one time in our actual lives (not 'potential' lives) have been dependent directly on the care of another to sustain our existence.

By the logic you are proposing, the killing of dialysis patients, those dependent on an iron lung, quadriplegics, those who are comatose, and the severely non-functional handicapped would all have to not be considered murder as well.

Neither location (the womb) nor dependence (the umbilical cord) negate humanity.

The arguments you and **S** are buying into are two glaring examples of rhetoric masking the lack of rational foundation that abortion-on-demand advocates depend upon in order to perpetuate this violation of the most basic human right. Those in positions of power are denying the humanity of those in positions of weakness...sounds familiar...almost like that whole "1950s mindset" that **S** seems so intent on getting past. Hmmm...

Exposing the facts in order to help bring out the truth and defend every human's dignity and rights,


ps: Speech, any upcoming AD news? I'm hoping for a follow-up to "Heroes..." :)

KISSmyBLAKarts said...

LOL... JMS thanks for the biology lesson, lets just say, I *GET* it!

My post was deliberately absurdist, because it highlights the absurdist rationale of the neo conservative doctrine around reproductive rights.

Clearly what I am saying is who are you, who is Sarah Palin, who is ANYONE to THINK they have the divine right to judge another or attempt to control another's individual outcome, with absolutely no capacity to understand the circumstances that surround such a situation.

Let them be answerable to their GOD for the choices they've made in their lives, not you and certainly not a political system, bureaucratic process.

Putting it into the hands of such mechanisms is fraught and full of contradiction. Afterall, it will be those to the right who judge the single mother, straddling the poverty line with the 12 kids, who are failure to thrive without any hope for a hand up, after her decision making capacity was taken out of her control by legislation. And so it goes...


thecultjam said...


I absolutely understand your points and agree with them, but the difference is people’s attitudes towards what “life” is. If someone is living off machines their family may pull the plug. People with terminal illness have asked for assisted suicides. I’m not claiming to agree or disagree with any of these attitudes or view points, because I, myself, have never been in any of these situations and don’t know what I would do.

The problem is people’s different views on one thing. Not peoples lack of God or respect for “life”. While abortion was not an option for myself I wasn’t in the same situation as many other women who have decided to abort, and I must respect that I am only a mortal like them, that it is God’s job to decide the rights and wrongs of their life, and that he in his infinite wisdom knows all sides of the story. I do not.

If a woman has an abortion and later comes to feel it was wrong, there should be shelter and support and love for her, the very things you seem to be committed to providing. If a woman has an abortion and lives her life truly believing she made the best decision, that is for her to discuss with her creator, along with many other things along the way, like all of us.

I assume you and I have read the same Bible (King James) and while I respect and understand your interpretation, I don’t share it. I understand that it is important to many Christians to spread the word and convert, NOT to impose their beliefs but out of true concern for society. I, on the other hand, have decided my energy is best spent living as an EXAMPLE. Whether or not a woman has an abortion is not my concern, just as her various possible reasons are not. My concern is living my life as close to God as I can. I believe I can do that by preaching tolerance and self-awareness, not by fixing other people. If you ask me what I would do, I’ll tell you honestly, if you ask me what YOU should do, I’ll tell you to search yourself and find what’s right for you. I don’t know these things. They are intensely personal decisions.

I believe in a God that has compassion and love and tolerance. Just because he disagrees with something you’ve done, may even be caused pain by your decision, he is your eternal father, and will, rather than judge and condemn, show you the error of your ways and teach you first hand what love and tolerance is.

There are parents all over the world who have children who have committed rapes, robberies, murders and suicide. I doubt their love for their children has disappeared or that they wish them an eternity of misery and pain. If we, humans, are capable of this kind of forgiveness and compassion, why wouldn’t God be?

I still share your hope that we find a way to end abortions. I only hope we can do that without imposing on peoples God-given freedom of choice.

JMS said...

Where is anyone ever said to have a "God-given right to choice" when it comes to taking the life of another? Why do you and **S** feel that the government does not have the right to prevent the taking of human life? That's absolutely the government's job when human life is in question.

I mean think about it, if someone has personal circumstances that leads them to be unable to care for their elderly parent, who are we to infringe on their "choice" to have their parent euthanized in their sleep? Sure their parent wouldn't agree to it if they were asked, but they wouldn't feel any pain and the person might be in really dire circumstances which leads them to make this painful "choice", right? Now I personally wouldn't choose to end the life of my aged parent...but how can I judge someone who feels this is the best way to go in their life? Let's leave that up to their Creator, not the government, right?

Of course not! Yet that is EXACTLY the logic that undergirds both of your positions. Can you not see this?


Victor G. said...


I understood that it was primarily for women, but it was interesting nonetheless to address the subject from a different perspective than was posted.

Understandably not ALL women (or men)believe she is a smart VP choice, but there is a minority voice that does agree with her being the next possible VP.

I appreciate the openess and honesty in your posts. Prayfully, the discussions will remain civil and ultimately allow people to make decisions based upon truth and not emotion.

Thanks for all you're doing to keep people's mind engaged on relevant issues in life and culture.

God bless!

Victor G.

kissmyblakarts said...

JMS, comparing womens reproductive rights issues to euthanasia is as sound as comparing apples and oranges. Both are laden with complexities and again, I am neither here to play judge nor jury.

Its seemingly at a point where one should respectfully agree to disagree - dont you think? :)


thecultjam said...

It seems like you're creating a scapegoat by ignoring everything I said in my post except for the last line.

I know you think abortion is murder, you've made that clear and we obviously disagree, what about the other points I brought up? Where do you think Gods love and forgiveness end?

I can only assume that your sensitivity to living things and their right to stay alive despite any other circumstance means your anti-war and at least vegetarian, if not vegan, right?

JMS said...

I'm sorry, I cannot "agree to disagree" anymoreso than abolitionists could've "agreed to disagree" with plantation owners. Human lives are at stake.

I'm just trying to keep you on point with your argument. You're bringing up issues in order to divert the conversation. God's love and mercy does not negate goverments' responsibility to maintain justice and human rights. Are you insinuating that someone can take a life but not worry about consequences legally because God is loving?

As for the red-herring about veganism, I believe you're assuming that since I believe all innocent human life is to be protected then that automatically translates into all life in general? Why stop at animal life then? Plants are just as alive as animals. Bacteria are just as alive as animals. But none of this matters, because it is human life that is at stake.

As for war, yes, in general I oppose it. Only in cases where it is absolutely necessary to protect innocent human life should it be considered (i.e. stopping genocide, etc.)

Now that we've gone down those two rabbit trails, let's keep in mind that in the time it's taken me to write this, multiple people developing in the safety of the womb have been violated and killed.

Like my man Ambassador said:
"Our culture's sick/
like rabies/
how else can you explain/
why we save trees and kill babies"
[From Cross Movement's CD "Holy Culture"]

While we are accepting the killing of innocent human lives as a "right", we lose the ability to pronounce any moral judgments about anything else...like guards at Auschwitz decrying the pollution from the furnaces.

Wake up,


thecultjam said...

JMS, please allow me to help keep you on point,

A) “WE” are not accepting the killing of human lives as a right, that’s YOUR trip. I am accepting that every person has their own body and they have the RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH IT. That’s it. I would love to live in a world where pregnancy ONLY happened when it was a welcomed blessing, but I don’t. I absolutely agree that there needs to be legal consequences for murder, but again, like I’ve said previously, I do not agree with your belief that physical life starts at conception, so abortion, in my view, is not murder. YOU believe its legalizing murder, I believe its legalizing the right to decide what to do with your own body. Government does have a responsibility to maintain justice and human rights, and last I checked, becoming pregnant doesn’t negate YOUR humanity or need for justice. You seem to think all rights belong to the growing embryo, I believe they should also include the person responsible for that embryo. I haven’t “insinuated” anything, I’ve been VERY direct about my beliefs. Just like you support the taking of innocent life if you believe a war is necessary, some women feel that way about their own bodies. This is not as cut and dry as breaking into someone’s house in the night and shooting them in the head. There are many complexities to what a “life” is, and because of that I believe it is up to GOD and not the government to handle it. Just like whether or not that war was really necessary. (“who would Jesus bomb”?)

B) As for the red-herring (good call btw =0) Animals and Plants are all life, all created by God, all innocent. Some survive, some do not, BUT in the case of animals, some are brought into this world ONLY TO BE KILLED. They are born and raised in slaughter houses only for human consumption. Do I try to legislate who does what with their animals even though I so strongly disagree with that approach? No, not because I think its ok, but because I accept that there are many different views for the same thing, and I have no real way of understanding another’s view when I feel so strongly about mine. Instead, I only eat meat I get from my local farmer (Dale has the best steaks!!!) because I know he cares for his animals, gives them a good life, and uses all possible portions to feed his family and others at reasonable prices. (I have to admit I eat mostly vegan foods, but I was raised on meat and my husband loves it so every once in a while…)

And finally, I’ve been awake. For years. I’m a well-read, educated, open-minded and opinionated person. Disagreeing with you does not mean I’m asleep, or whatever you’re trying to “insinuate” with your closing. A lot of time, research, thoughtfulness and soul-searching go into all of my beliefs, especially spiritual, whether you like them or not.


JMS said...

The bottom line is that the person who's living inside the woman's body has the most basic right--the right to not be killed. The issue of when human life begins is not as hazy as the abortion-on-demand proponents would have us all believe. People tried to do this during slavery by saying that people with dark skin did not constitute full humans, and therefore did not have the rights that "real people" have.
Either the person in the womb is or is not a human. The only criteria by which people claim they're not human are subjective and undefineable. The burden of proof is absolutely on those who seek to deem a growing, developing, living thing with its own unique human DNA pattern something other than a human being. All other issues in the debate are subservient to this one.

And while I can respect you as a person and respect your (and **S**'s) right to believe what you want, I cannot respect the idea that it should be legal to take innocent human life in non-self-defense circumstances anymoreso than I can respect the idea that other subjective criteria (like ethnic background, skin color, or mental handicap) render those people less than human, and therefore not fully protected by our legal system.

If we were discussion "a woman's body" (i.e. ovaries, breasts, hair, uterus, eyes, or any other part of her body that shares her DNA structure), I would be much less adamant and much more willing to concede your points. Unfortunately, we're not. So I cannot.


Kissmyblakarts said...

JMS, what I find interesting in all of this, is that from the very beginning IN BOLD it was clearly stated that this was a forum for women.

Clearly you cannot stand down and see the irony of attempting to diminsh womens perspectives in a womens forum.

Equally you dragging other comparatives [aka abolitionists] rolls swiftly from the sublime to the ridiculous.

I *GET* that you are a blindsighted crusaider - how very noble of you to *adopt-a-cause* - but who are YOU accountable to and why do YOU feel its YOUR divine right to step up to and over women about OUR reproductive rights?

Trust me we can and do have the ability to speak for ourselves.


JMS said...

Sorry, **S**, but abortion is not a "womans issue", it's a human rights issue. One's "reproductive rights" end where another's life begins. The gender card doesn't work when it comes to the taking of human life. All the "rights" rhetoric in the world cannot change that. Abolitionists in the north were told by southern slaveholders that since they weren't in the plantation industry, they couldn't relate and had no right to determine what was right and wrong for others. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

And it would be much easier if I were "adopting a cause"...unfortunately, I've seen firsthand the tremendous damage that abortion has done to women who have gone through it who I've talked with, prayed with, and shared the joy of God's grace with. Abortion has hurt my friends and killed their offspring. I can't be flippant about something like that.


ps: the original post may have been directed towards women...but Speech's blog is for all his fans, men included. Abortion-on-demand proponents can't win the debate by denying those who disagree with them the right to speak in the first place just because of their gender.

JMS said...

ps: This video clip is, in my opinion, overly-dramatic and the background music is unnecessary (and I don't necessarily support the website it shows at the end), but it does present the core fact of why I cannot vote for Obama, no matter how good his ideas on other issues may be...



Anonymous said...

Wonderful article,thanks for putting this together! "This is obviously one great post. Thanks for the valuable information and insights you have so provided here. Keep it up!"
speech writing

Anonymous said...

Wow Impressive!
Your blog is very informative. However, it is pretty hard task but your post and experience serve and teach me how to handle and make it more simple and manageable.
Thanks for the tips… Best regards.

Custom Essay said...

This is really a nice post, you share good piece of information. I appreciate the information, well thought out and written. Thank you

Custom Research Papers said...

Excellent post, I really enjoy reading this article, thank you so much for sharing it.

Dissertation Help said...

This is really a wonderful article and also obviously one great post. Thanks for the valuable information and insights you have so provided to us. Keep up the good work.

A level coursework said...

This is great work and very good information. This post will really help beginners, although it is basic but, it will help others in great deal in future.

online essays said...

This is an excellent and informative work, this will really helpful for me in future. I like the way you start and then conclude your thoughts. Thanks for this information .I really appreciate your work, keep it up.

Buy Essay said...

Thank you a lot for this information, and looking forward to reading more in the future, as I have bookmarked your site, this post is really very informative. Thanks

Custom Term Papers said...

Very nice, unique and informative post. Thanks for sharing. Keep up the good work.

Dissertation Help said...

it's good to see this information in your post, i was looking the same but there was not any proper resource, thanx now i have the link which i was looking for my research.

a level coursework said...

Your posting is very good and theme base for which it is liking to every people. Thanks a lot!!!
a level coursework | dissertation

alex james said...

I really appreciate it, and this resource is really useful for us. Thanks for sharing.

assignment help
assignment help australia

william doe said...

I personally like your post; you have shared good insights and experiences.

Assignment Help UK
Assignment Writing Help UK